[hnu123]

> How can people be so blood-thirsty that it's ok to sacrifice over 600 men for nothing more than a "spectacle"?

Is sacrificing 100,000 innocent civilians in hiroshima for spectacle any better?

> It's really difficult to understand how a highly civilized society for the time could have almost no respect for human life.

Ever read the Iliad? Or the hebrew bible? Besides, you become 'highly civilized' by killing everyone who disagrees with you and proclaiming yourself 'highly civilized'.

It's always been this way. Rome wasn't civilized. It was genocidal and brutal. The most genocidal and brutal of its time.

And if you think caesar was bad, augustus was far more brutal. But his savagery saved the 'civilized' roman empire.

[maximus-decimus]

I think there's a big different between killing people to end a war and killing people for entertainment.

[hnu123]

What did Hiroshima have to do with ending a war? By the time of hiroshima, the japanese army, navy, military was nonexistent and had been for nearly a year. It was just a military test of a barbaric weapon on innocent civilians. It literally was the biggest human experiment of ww2.

Hiroshima both in scale and barbarity is orders of magnitude worse than what the romans did. But then again, we model ourselves after the romans...

Your comment and the downvote proves my point. Though we think we are civilized today, we are just as evil and barbaric as ever. We rationalize our barbarity just like the romans and everyone else does. No civilized person or people would even dream of rationalizing something as evil as nuking innocent and defenseless civilians.

[Alupis]

You are encouraged to read deeper about the end of WWII. If anyone sacrificed the people of Hiroshima, it was the Japanese Imperialist Government that refused to surrender despite the obvious obliteration of their conventional forces.

To make it brief, every single landmass occupied by Japanese forces and civilians offered fierce resistance/guerilla warfare to invading/liberating forces. Additionally, as another commenter has noted, the Japanese military had significantly increased their numbers to a staggering 6 million troops towards the end. The death toll projections, based on the above, for a mass land invasion of Japan were many factors greater than the life cost of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined - many, many factors greater.

The Japanese government did not just refuse to surrender, but continued to wage war. This meant either a land invasion, or some alternative were necessary to compel the government into surrender.

Dropping the second nuclear bomb accomplished this goal - particularly when accompanied by the (empty) threat of dropping many more until surrender.

It also should be noted both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were central to the Japanese war economy/machine and were not simply civilian population centers. Regardless, the loss of life directly from the bombings and indirectly from the aftermath is still calculated to have been significantly less than the loss of life had a ground invasion been waged.

[pineaux]

We dont know this. It's all speculation. All of it. And it's speculation of a winner. So it's not surprising that it conveniently frames the willing destruction of 100,000 people as the lesser of two evils. Also, many people talk about the bombs. But dont forget: the firebombings killed many more people and were aimed at civilians. General LeMay, who ordered the attack that resulted in the murder of 100,000 innocent people in one single night. Said the following when asked about his motives: “There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn’t bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders.”

If you are willing to see the narrative from another perspective here are some links:

Firebombings of Tokyo: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/07/asia/japan-tokyo-fire-raids-o...

Court ruling about Hiroshima and Nagasaki (deemed unlawful acts of war = war crime) https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/53/Shimoda-...

[Alupis]

Some of the highest estimates of death toll caused by both atomic bombs combined are in the low 200,000 range.

The Battle of Okinawa alone had nearly 200,000 military casualties and another 150,000 civilian deaths.[1]

People asserting dropping of the bombs was wrong in any way are divorced from reality. Their position is devoid of all facts.

To be blunt. Dropping of the atomic bombs was not just the right decision, it was the most humane decision.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa#:~:text=Th....

[defrost]

You are encouraged to read deeper about the end of WWII.

From an official US atomic historian, a survey of the breadth of opinion on the use of the atomic weapons, from just after until more recently: https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-u...

There are many entries there on many aspects of atomic weapons and a wealth of declassified contemporary material.

As you can see you're largely repeating one position of a broad field as if it were gospel and there were no other positions and no evolution of the debate.

Many of your points are those that came into being after the use of the bomb, back fitted proto Cold War era justifications.

There was relatively little thought put into using the weapons at the time other than a sense of urgency to field test two distinct designs resulting from the most expensive weapons development program in histrory that didn't produce anything useful until after the Germans surrended.

Hiroshimo & Nagasaki were to be bombed regardless, they were way down the punch list and followed on from 72 other Japanese cities destroyed via firebombing and conventional high explosives.

They were selected not for their importance (they were much further down the last than mid 70's) but because they were relatively untouched and made for good test sites for "just the atomic bomb damage".

[jncfhnb]

It’s not speculation. It’s basically common sense. How awful and long would a ground invasion of these areas have been? Would it even be possible? How many of your troops are you willing to sacrifice to spare the lives of your enemy’s civilians?

[pineaux]

It is literally speculation, in the literal sense of the word. Speculation, as defined by the Cambridge dictionary: the activity of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain.

The question here is if japan would have surrendered without the Atomic bombs. There is not enough evidence for it being True or False.

Many modern historians claim that japan would have surrendered anyway because its military was in shambles. They hoped for a conditional surrender. The bombs were frightening, but didnt create more damage than the previous firebombings. The fact that the Soviet Union joined the was on the western flank of japan was probably the straw. It blocked all future possibilities of diplomatic conditional surrender by pleading with the Russians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bomb test sites and at least a hundred thousand innocent people died just to see the end-product of the most expensive weapons program ever. If Germany would have done it, all the people in the chain of command would have probably been hanged for war crimes.

[brabel]

Why do you think a ground invasion was necessary? WWI finished without a ground invasion of Germany. Completely occupying enemy's territory was not a common way to end a war. The "normal" way was to end your enemy's capacity to fight, and then negotiate surrender. You can argue that the Japanese would refuse to surrender for a lot longer, but to think the "only way" to end their resistance was to either nuke innocent civillians (and I hope no one here thinks "there are no innocent" people, like they did at the time) or occupy the whole country on the ground seems to be ignoring basically every conflict prior and since then.

[hnu123]

> You are encouraged to read deeper about the end of WWII.

I have. Beyond the propaganda and all the nonsense. But you don't need to read deeper to understand evil is evil. Nothing justifies acts of genocide like nuking civilians.

> If anyone sacrificed the people of Hiroshima, it was the Japanese Imperialist Government that refused to surrender despite the obvious obliteration of their conventional forces.

The japanese government had been suing for peace for more than a year prior to hiroshima. But even if they didn't, it still doesn't justify nuking civilians. Just because a government doesn't act in a manner you want doesn't justify murdering civilians. That's the logic of terrorists. Killing civilians to hurt the government. If your morality aligns with terrorists, you really should reassess your moral foundations.

> To make it brief...

You just spouted off propaganda that we all are spoonfed via media and school system. I'm surprised you didn't include the nonsense about purple hearts.

> It also should be noted both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were central to the Japanese war economy/machine and were not simply civilian population centers

More terrorist logic. Just because Manhattan is the center of the US economy doesn't justify 9/11.

That you are trying to justify hiroshima and the nuking of civilians just proves my point. Evil and barbaric. There is no justification for genocide. Period.

[thereisnospork]

>Nothing justifies ...

Citation needed. That's just war: don't like being >insert atrocity here'd< then don't lose.

[harimau777]

Personally, I think that people take the wrong lesson away from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

WW2 was fought under the doctrine of "total war". All of a society's resources; including civilians and industry, were part of your war effort. That in turn meant that civilians and industry were considered legitimate military targets. Under that doctrine, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets. If the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped, then the alternative was not that those cities stayed standing. The alternative was that the cities would be carpet bombed.

Personally, I think that the lesson that we should take away is not so much that dropping the atomic bombs was wrong; rather it's that the doctrine of total war that made dropping the atomic bombs permissible was wrong.

[nradov]

The Japanese government started the war and was free to stop it at any time. They could have issued an unconditional surrender and the fighting would have stopped within hours. All of the deaths in Hiroshima were entirely their responsibility.

[brabel]

Right, just like Ukraine could just stop the war right now by surrendering unconditionally, and all Ukrainians who are dying in the war are entirely their own government's responsibility, right? This argument goes for both sides of every war, hence it's completely meaningless.

[hnu123]

> The Japanese government started the war and was free to stop it at any time.

No. The US started the war with economic sanctions. This is a historical fact.

> They could have issued an unconditional surrender and the fighting would have stopped within hours.

They could have. Or the US could have accepted japan's conditional surrender. Just because a government refuses to surrender doesn't justify murdering innocent civilians. Do you think if a criminal refuses to surrender, the cops are justified in murdering the criminal's wife and children?

> All of the deaths in Hiroshima were entirely their responsibility.

No. The responsibility lies on the people who dropped the nukes.

What you and your ilk are doing is using terrorist logic to justify murdering civilians. Murdering civilians because you don't like the actions of a government is terrorist logic. When you share the morality of terrorists, you should reevaluate your moral foundation.

But you prove my point. Evil is alive and well. Justifying genocide and nuking of civilians is evil.

[nemo]

> The US started the war with economic sanctions.

Like Ukraine started a war with Russia by economic alignment with the western powers, or Poland starting a war with Germany in WW II for their offenses against German citizens.

> This is a historical fact.

It's very poor form to introduce a not only controversial opinion but a wholly subjective one, then claim that opinion to be a fact. It erases any credibility you might think you have.

[hnu123]

> Like Ukraine started a war with Russia by economic alignment with the western powers

The ukraine war started when the US and Russia agreed to partition ukraine. Like the germans and soviets did to poland in ww2. Ukraine has no say in the matter. No more than poland did in the 1930s. Ukraine didn't start anything. Ukraine can't stop anything.

> or Poland starting a war with Germany in WW II for their offenses against German citizens.

No. The war in poland started when the Germans and the Soviets decided to divided poland up. Sound familiar?

> It's very poor form to introduce a not only controversial opinion but a wholly subjective one

It's not controversial. It's a fact. Sanctions are an act of war. Blocking trade is an act of war. You blockade 90+% of oil to a country, it's a declaration of war. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why pearl harbor happened.

[scheme271]

> > The Japanese government started the war and was free to stop it at any time. > No. The US started the war with economic sanctions. This is a historical fact.

Sanctions started to be imposed in 1938. But Japan invaded Manchuria in 1933 and by 1937 invaded China and had already perpetrated the Nanking Massacre. The sanctions were in part a response to the invasion of China and Japanese atrocities against China.

[hnu123]

> Sanctions started to be imposed in 1938.

And? You realize that 1938 is before 1941?

> But Japan invaded Manchuria in 1933 and by 1937 invaded China and had already perpetrated the Nanking Massacre.

The US ( and much of europe ) invaded china in the 1800s and by 1937 had committed hundreds of massacres. What's your point? Why was Nanking so important? Oh that's right, it was the center of american and european colonization of china.

> The sanctions were in part a response to the invasion of China and Japanese atrocities against China.

No. The sanctions were in response to japan taking american and european possessions in china. Had nothing to do with atrocities in china.

If the US cared about atrocities against china, we would have sanctioned the british, germans, russians, italians, french, etc long before we sanctioned the japanese. Heck we would have sanctioned ourselves long before we sanctioned japan for committing atrocities against japan.

BTW, the only nationality explicitly banned from the US was the chinese with the Chinese Exclusion Act. The idea that the US cared about chinese lives is laughable.

If you stand back and look at the garbage propaganda you are regurgitating, youd' realize how silly it all is.

"We dropped the nuke to save japanese lives". "We sanctioned japan to save chinese lives". Amazing how racist white supremacists cared so much about asian lives.

[yongjik]

> > The Japanese government started the war and was free to stop it at any time.

> No. The US started the war with economic sanctions. This is a historical fact.

Ah, you are the kind of person who consider the US the aggressor of the Pacific War. You could have started your argument with that; it would've saved time for everyone.

[hnu123]

> Ah, you are the kind of person who consider the US the aggressor of the Pacific War.

You mean the country that colonized japan ( twice ), philippines, korea, china, vietnam, not to mention stole hawaii and a bunch of pacific islands? Yes. We have been aggressors in the pacific for centuries.

But if you are talking about US-Japan war, it is historical fact that US sanctions ( an act of war ) was the beginning of US-Japan war.

If you are talking about the overall Pacific War, then it's complicated. European and american invasion and colonization of almost all of asia spurred japan militarization and eventual war.

But regardless, doesn't matter who the aggressor was. Nuking innocent civilians is evil. Period.

[its_ethan]

For what it's worth, by 1945 (Hiroshima) the Japanese army had grown from 1,700,000 (1941) to 6,000,000 (1945). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army#World_W...

Also to say it was just some barbaric test sort of ignores the fact that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb was dropped, they weren't some innocent bystander, they were actively running offensive military campaigns through 1944, and their intention was to continue fighting the war - until the US proved that they had the resources to do it a second time (and therefore unknowably many times, as far as Japan knew).

There's also a credible argument to be made that the US dropping nuclear bombs on Japan might've had a net positive effect on total lives lost if the war continued another 6 months. You can absolutely debate which lives were lost versus saved, and the ethics of either route - but to just pass it off as some "barbaric human experiment" seems a little disingenuous.

[hnu123]

> For what it's worth, by 1945 (Hiroshima) the Japanese army had grown from 1,700,000 (1941) to 6,000,000 (1945).

Yes. A bunch of elderly and young boys 'armed' with broomsticks. That you have to resort this level of nonsense should tell you something...

> they were actively running offensive military campaigns through 1944

You do know that hiroshima occurred in the latter half of 1945 right?

> There's also a credible argument to be made that the US dropping nuclear bombs on Japan might've had a net positive effect on total lives lost if the war continued another 6 months.

There is no credible argument. Just propaganda.

There is no defense of genocide and war crimes period. Doesn't stop evil people who rationalize the genocide of the native americans, hiroshima/nagasaki, holocaust, etc. But then again the genocide of the native americans, hiroshima, nagasaki, etc happens because of evil people in 'civilized' nations.

It's amazing that you fail to realize that you are proving me correct. Evil and barbarity is alive and well today. Just like in ww2. Just like in the days of caesar and augustus.

[harimau777]

It's bad practice to simply dismiss arguments as "propaganda" without engaging with them. The dropping of the atomic bomb was significantly more nuanced that what you are suggesting.

You are correct that the Japanese government had lost at least much of it's will to fight. However, the US believed that the military was likely to stage a coup if the government attempted to surrender.

If the Allies had to engage in an island hopping campaign, then the lives lost likely would have outnumbered those lost to the atomic bombs.

The US wanted to end the war before the Soviet Union had time to get involved and start gaining territory; which they would likely have annexed. In the long term, it has probably been a good thing for Japan that they did not get that chance.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets under the then accepted doctrine of total war.

[hnu123]

> It's bad practice to simply dismiss arguments as "propaganda" without engaging with them.

Sure. If you are new to the discussion. But I'm not. I've come across all the rationalizations and of course the propaganda all my life. It's always the people peddling debunked propaganda who demand that propaganda be taken seriously.

> The dropping of the atomic bomb was significantly more nuanced that what you are suggesting.

Who cares? It's genocide. It's a war crime. It is pure evil. No excuse for it.

> If the Allies had to engage in an island hopping campaign, then the lives lost likely would have outnumbered those lost to the atomic bombs.

Are you seriously arguing the most racist nation on earth ( US ) cared about a bunch of non-white japanese lives? You do realize that the US had banned japanese immigration decades earlier because the japanese were inferior asians right? The genocidal firebombings of much of japan and hiroshima/nagasaki prove that the US did care about japanese lives.

> The US wanted to end the war before the Soviet Union had time to get involved and start gaining territory;

If so, the US would have accept japan's surrender in 1944 when japan start offering peace terms.

> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets under the then accepted doctrine of total war.

No they weren't. If japan or germany had nuked the US, those involved would have been tried and executed for war crimes/crimes against humanity.

You are just regurgitating debunked and pathetic propaganda I've heard many times. All one has to do is think to see through the nonsense.

How pathetic do you have to be to believe a white supremacist nation/government cared about saving japanese lives? The rationalization of evil. It's always evil that rationalizes the most. You sound more ridiculous than nazis who claim hitler tried to save the jews from the soviet communists. Imagine believing we nuked the japanese civilians to save japanese lives. That's beyond dumb and evil.

[lotsoweiners]

Maybe but I’d sure rather be on the side doing the genocide, nuking, etc than the other side. In many scenarios the group that was decimated lacked the hubris to understand it was beaten. No matter I don’t see all of the people e of the world with their varying interests coming together around the camp fire to sing kumbaya anytime soon.